Overclocking a Core i5 3570k

[trparky]

I've been so far able to overclock my Intel Core i5 3570k CPU to 4.2 GHz from the stock clock of 3.4 GHz, that's a 800 MHz increase. Surprisingly I did it simply by enabling something called ASUS Optimal mode in UEFI BIOS.

Right now the bus speed is running at 103 MHz and the CPU ratio is at x41 to run at a clock speed of 4223 MHz with a voltage of 1.312. Is that voltage too high or do I have room to go further? Temps under a full Prime95 load hovers at around 85c and idles at around 35c.

I am water-cooled, no air cooler here. ThermalTake Water 2.0 closed-loop kit here.

 

[Folterknecht]

Hi,

1) Fill out your system specs
2) VCore seems a little high for 4.2 GHz - most samples will probably do that below 1.25-1.20V.
3) OC with "Auto OC" option / 1-click is a bad idea in general. Please do yourself (and hardware) a favor and read up on overclocking - you can start here for Sandy/Ivybridge CPUs

Furthermore messing around with BCLK for no reason when you have an unlocked Multi available and you are still far away from the limit of the CPU, just shows you why among other things 1-click auto-OC is bad. A BCLK that is too high can cause all kinds of nasty things depending on the platform and individual hardware you are using. The safe limit for Ivybrdige is around 105 MHz btw.
When experienced users do that it's usually to eeck out the last MHz and they are aware of the possible consequences on their platform. For novices an unlocked Multi is more than good enough and it doesn't mess around with the RAM at the same time.

 

[Sasqui]

See my specs. All I did was change the multiplier and mess with CPU voltage. I think I'm at 1.35v Vcore

Though it's watercooled, I'd easily get to 4.5 on air. Would not have been possible without delidding.

85c under Prime95 is good. If it can survive a 12 hour run, it'll take on anything.

 

[trparky]

My motherboard is an ASUS P8Z77-V, BIOS version 2104.

Anyways, I decided to stop my experiment reset the system back to optimal defaults. To be honest I wasn't seeing the kinds of performance increases that I was looking for. I have one game that is heavily CPU dependent and even with that 800 MHz overclock the increase in performance was negligible at best. I figure that the game is just that poorly written and that no matter what I throw at it I won't see the kinds of performance increases I was looking for. I was looking to eek out 20 more frames per second and I was lucky to see an additional 5 (yeah, not even worth it).

 

[P4-630]

I was looking to eek out 20 more frames per second

You were looking at the wrong hardware...
Try a better graphics card!

 

[trparky]

Starcraft 2 is not graphics card dependent, I have been told this by many people. You can put a GTX 1080Ti into the system for Starcraft 2 and it will do nothing for that game. The code for that game is just that shitty under the hood.

It's like who the hell did they have write that game? A couple of unpaid interns? Someone straight out of college with no previous C/C++ experience? You can throw hardware all you want at this game and it will do nothing for you and I've Google'd this, the general idea is that the game is just that badly written under the hood.

 

[R00kie]

Starcraft 2 is not graphics card dependent, I have been told this by many people. You can put a GTX 1080Ti into the system for Starcraft 2 and it will do nothing for that game. The code for that game is just that shitty under the hood.

It's like who the hell did they have write that game? A couple of unpaid interns? Someone straight out of college with no previous C/C++ experience? You can throw hardware all you want at this game and it will do nothing for you and I've Google'd this, the general idea is that the game is just that badly written under the hood.

Well, it depends what youre running it on. A GT610 is not gonna perform like a GTX1080 if youre going to overclock your processor.

 

[trparky]

I've accepted the fact that the game (Starcraft 2) just won't run that well no matter what I do. It's a losing battle I have on my hands here, I'm not going to win here.

 

[P4-630]

I've accepted the fact that the game (Starcraft 2) just won't run that well no matter what I do. It's a losing battle I have on my hands here, I'm not going to win here.

Just curious, what GPU do you have?

What are your system specs? Also at least 4GB ram is recommended for this game.

 

[trparky]

AMD R9 380.

 

[trparky]

If you want to know what's happening, here is what's happening...

When there's not much going on on the screen FPS is pretty high (50+ FPS) but when I get as much action going on like what is in the video FPS numbers drop through the floor and I don't understand why.

This is what I call my system stress test attack mode, it's a way to find out if the system can cope with as many units on the screen as there are and it's obvious it can't. Why it can't I have no idea.

Is there something wrong with my system or am I just asking for way too much here?

@P4-630 I have 16 GBs of RAM in this machine.

 

[Mussels]

Starcraft 2 is not graphics card dependent, I have been told this by many people. You can put a GTX 1080Ti into the system for Starcraft 2 and it will do nothing for that game. The code for that game is just that shitty under the hood.

It's like who the hell did they have write that game? A couple of unpaid interns? Someone straight out of college with no previous C/C++ experience? You can throw hardware all you want at this game and it will do nothing for you and I've Google'd this, the general idea is that the game is just that badly written under the hood.

as a starcraft II player with a 1080 and a 3770k, you are correct - its CPU (and to an extent, RAM) dependant. It's directX 9 is all, the core game is *old* despite the recent expansions and DLC's.

Do a manual OC (Multiplier + voltage) and see how far you get, but to be honest you wont get past 4.4GHz or so without delidding - even with a delid on water i struggle to get the higher clocks because these chips just run hot for their wattages.

As far as that video goes, i play 4v4 on arcade ( LOTV monobattles, mostly) and even i tank down to 15-20 FPS on a mix of medium settings w/ ultra textures in large battles like in your video.

 

[trparky]

DirectX 9? Crap. So that means we have to go through potential compatibility layers when running the game on newer versions of Windows that have newer versions of DirectX such as Windows 10. DirectX 12 emulates older versions which heaps on layers of crap between the game and the hardware. Ugh.

@Mussels OK, so I'm not the only one that tanks down that low. Well... at least I'm not the only one. Does that make me happy? No.

 

[Mussels]

DirectX 9? Crap. So that means we have to go through potential compatibility layers when running the game on newer versions of Windows that have newer versions of DirectX such as Windows 10. DirectX 12 emulates older versions which heaps on layers of crap between the game and the hardware. Ugh.

@Mussels OK, so I'm not the only one that tanks down that low. Well... at least I'm not the only one. Does that make me happy? No.

nothing at all to do with compatibility layers, DX9 is 100% natively supported. It runs better in 10 than older OS's due to better CPU utilisation with things like core parking. It's literally just a single threaded game (one for game, one for GPU drivers) and thats all there is to it - overclocking is all you can do, because if the *OTHER PLAYER* lags you will too - its a P2P game after all.

 

[trparky]

OK, I managed to get this chip of mine overclocked to 4.4 GHz, that's a whole 1 GHz faster than stock speeds. I have set the CPU voltage manually to 1.34 volts.

The reason why it says "1.352" in the caption is because I hadn't saved the 1.34 volt setting to the UEFI yet.

I have thrown the IntelBurnTest at this overclock and ran it at "Stress Level High" and it appears to be stable at 4.4 GHz. I'm just wondering if I'm pushing too much voltage into the chip. Is 1.34 volts too high?

 

[Mussels]

OK, I managed to get this chip of mine overclocked to 4.4 GHz, that's a whole 1 GHz faster than stock speeds. I have set the CPU voltage manually to 1.34 volts.
View attachment 89414
The reason why it says "1.352" in the caption is because I hadn't saved the 1.34 volt setting to the UEFI yet.

I have thrown the IntelBurnTest at this overclock and ran it at "Stress Level High" and it appears to be stable at 4.4 GHz. I'm just wondering if I'm pushing too much voltage into the chip. Is 1.34 volts too high?

1.4v is the higest i'd run 24/7, as long as temps are <80C load i'd say you're peachy.

Dont forget you can tweak the voltages down slowly to try and tune it in.

 

[trparky]

Am I too close to the 1.4v limit with my current 1.34v setting?

 

[Mussels]

no, you'll be fine.

You have your overclock stable - next step is to slowly tune in the voltages and get that same stability at lower volts. Might not be possible, but very likely is (i can get 4.5Ghz with 1.25V, so yours should be able to go lower)

 

[trparky]

I'll play with it some more tomorrow, for now I just want to stream some NetFlix.

 

[trparky]

Sorry about the double post but I managed to get it down to 1.275v, just a tad bit higher in voltage than @Mussels has his at. Sadly I can't get the chip to do 4.5 GHz, it BSODs at anything higher than 4.4 GHz. I'm now running the IntelBurnTest in "Very High" mode to test system stability.

I'll edit this post with the results of the "burn" test.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I was looking to eek out 20 more frames per second and I was lucky to see an additional 5

Actually, that 5fps extra for the 380 is pretty good. Your CPU was indeed feeding the GPU better.

BTW, as others have said, 4.2 should easily be attainable for 1.25v or less. No harm at all in leaving it there. The overall improvement in games will be seen over time, especially once you upgrade the GPU.

Because SC II is so single thread defendant that keeping your clockspeed as at least 4.1GHz or higher.

 

[trparky]

Alright, I have it locked in at 1.275 volts as what the picture below shows. It's also clocked at 4.4 GHz, a full 1 GHz faster than the stock clock of 3.4 GHz.

I also ran twenty passes of IntelBurnTest in "Very High" mode, passed with flying colors and temperatures are well within acceptable margins. Finally that water cooling is coming in handy.

Sadly I can't get the chip to do 4.5 GHz, it BSODs at anything higher than 4.4 GHz.

 

[Mussels]

only further advice i have for you there is the VCCSA and PLL voltages can likely be lowered as well, reducing wattage and heat without altering stability.


i'll do a quick reboot and get you the voltages i'm using, and edit them in here in 2 minutes

Edit:

VCCSA 1.107v (this was for my 2400mhz ram, so you can stick with yours at the lower setting - or try lower again)
CPU PLL: 1.653v (lower was more stable at higher clocks - and shaved about 5C off load)

 

[trparky]

Will it really change anything? I kind of confident in my overclock right now and I don't want to muck things up.

 

[MrGenius]